What is your stance on the 2nd Amendment. Do you think we need some gun control?

The Weapons Education forums are now on Tapatalk. This will allow all those who use it to view and participate in the forums using the Tapatalk app. If you own an iPhone or Android device you can download the app and use these forums on the go.

If this is your first visit to Weapons Education Forums, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Thank you for acknowledging my post. It is usually impossible for me to post on most sites because my "posts" do not pass the censorship czars who run the sights. This happens on both the left and the right. The right to bear arms is indeed protected by the second amendment but that does not mean everybody has that right. In a society some people relinquish their rights to certain freedoms. If I interpret your post correctly you feel that it is improper to have convicted felons own and carry firearms, not because you feel it is a good idea, but because the way the constitution is worded. I answer you in this way. By this logic a person who is in prison should have the right to bear arms while in prison. When a person breaks the law he relinguishes certain rights. In many cases his personal freedom is one of them hence incarceration. This is the same with gun ownership. Should all felons be banned from gun ownership? No of course not. Nonviolent felons pose no threat to society in a violent way. However the solution is simple. At time of sentencing it should be decreed if future ownership of firearms is allowed. It would not necessarily be only acts commited with firearms either. If you beat your neighbor or domestic partner to near death with a baseball bat for instance your penalty could very well include firearm restrictions. The important thing to remember here is that a court of law must impose this restriction. each case decided on its own merits. As to the rest of your post--magazine size, type of firearm, where you can carry (Chicago, DC, no carry zones etc.) are all protected by the second amendment but are abused by local laws that should be deemed unenforceable. I have a lot more opinions on the gun issue but sadly no one wants to hear them from either side.

No, thank you for making the post. I wish more people would participate on this site because we can learn a lot from each other and see things in a different light that we may not have thought of before.

Originally Posted by BigBadAl

By this logic a person who is in prison should have the right to bear arms while in prison.

Hmm.. Interesting thought. I would say no for this reason. You have the right to bear arms yes. But you do not have the right to bear arms in my house if I ask you not to. The state/Fed prison does not allow you to bear arms would depend on if you consider a prison public or private property? I consider it private thus no guns.

Originally Posted by BigBadAl

This is the same with gun ownership. Should all felons be banned from gun ownership? No of course not. Nonviolent felons pose no threat to society in a violent way. However the solution is simple. At time of sentencing it should be decreed if future ownership of firearms is allowed. It would not necessarily be only acts commited with firearms either. If you beat your neighbor or domestic partner to near death with a baseball bat for instance your penalty could very well include firearm restrictions. The important thing to remember here is that a court of law must impose this restriction. each case decided on its own merits.

I agree. A non Violent felon should not have their rights taken away. I like your idea of the courts deciding.

Originally Posted by BigBadAl

I have a lot more opinions on the gun issue but sadly no one wants to hear them from either side.

I do. Isn't this the reason why a place like this exists? If we cannot talk openly about gun issues (right or wrong) then what's the point of "weapons education" IMO. I also hope this is not one of those sites you would consider a censorship czar.

Last edited by Robomick; 04-12-2013 at 06:38 AM.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Not worth talking about or bringing it up. People who question it don't want rational or reason. They want to argue and look all self righteous in front of their friends. Taking them out target shooting and focusing on having a good time is in my experience the best way to install doubt in their preconceived notions.

I think the only reason some politicions want to get rid of our right to have guns is so that when they decide to go after the rest of our rights we won't be able to fight back. The only people that laws prohibit are the law abiding good guys. Criminals don't care that something is illegal. Normal citizens want and need guns for the same reason our government has nukes, because the bad guy has them too.

In point of historical and constitutional fact, nothing could be further from the truth: the only amendment necessary for gun legislation, on the local or national level, is the Second Amendment itself, properly understood, as it was for two hundred years in its plain original sense but this is not a Family law. This sense can be summed up in a sentence according to Criminal Defense Law: if the Founders hadn’t wanted guns to be regulated, and thoroughly, they would not have put the phrase “well regulated” in the amendment. (A quick thought experiment: What if those words were not in the preamble to the amendment and a gun-sanity group wanted to insert them? Would the National Rifle Association be for or against this change? It’s obvious, isn’t it?)